Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 comments on the NBC Chicago story from Jan 7, 2013, titled Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes. In it, NBC Chicago reports that:

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Chicago.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9552 Sep 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i am well aware that my spiritual forefathers were persecuted and slaughtered at the hands of various "Christian" denominations; probably more so than by non Christians.
however there is a spiritual heritage that is well defined in Christianity that has no history of persecuting or slaughtering anyone. we look at the life of Christ and don't see anywhere where he ever condoned that a man should persecute or slaughter anyone simply for their religious beliefs. those who think they have that right are thinking out side of what Christ taught and really can't say that what they are doing is Christian. so maybe they them selves are not Christians but some other kind of religious group,
he had no need to as earlier, in the form of god, he gave all the orders one needs in that regard. "kill them all that don't believe!" (I paraphrase. his orders were far more bloody and gruesome, but then he really is a little prick of a god, isn't he?)

and jesus and god are one and the same, no?

religious cults are fun!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9553 Sep 7, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
That line of thought and arguments similar to those made by the florist in were resoundingly rejected by the New Mexico Supreme Court in the case of the photographer defending themselves against discrimination charges against gays..
You make a point by going elsewhere. Normal people wouldn't sue.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9554 Sep 7, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you must think blacks should have just accepted being refused service or receiving second class service in the Jim Crow era as well.
There you go clinging to blacks again. They don't like it. There is/was no Jim Crow.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#9555 Sep 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Edmond
You had responded to a post of mine some time ago, I actually started to back track to find it, until I saw this.
Page 433,#9391. I’d still be interested in your reply.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Don't all fathers want, or have, think they have anyway, a say in their daughter's choice of husband? At least an opinion?
An opinion, and that’s all. As you say, it’s her decision, not yours. Except, apparently, where you would intercede to put marriage out of her reach, limiting her decision.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You assume I would want him to marry.
I assume you would want it to be his decision, like you say you would want for your daughter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I would want him to realize only he can "make" him happy. If he chose to partner, thenI would support him on that.
And if he chose to marry his partner? But I’m not really asking if you’d “support” him or not. That would be your decision. Your location is hidden, so I have no idea of the status of marriage laws where you are. If someone you love and care about and want only success for were gay, whether it were your son or not, and they wanted a same-sex marriage, and they lived in a place which performed and recognized them, then for what reason would they not function? They do here in Washington.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Josh Weed's marriage is neither loveless, nor sexless.
That’s nice for him, but his life isn’t a model for mine, nor any gay person I ever met. If he feels he’s made a free choice which suits him then I’m happy for him, but if I were to select some woman, just to satisfy someone else’s expectations, then my marriage would be loveless and sexless. Adulterous, too, probably, and no doubt on her part as well. I would hope so. I would WANT her to find some happiness and satisfaction, and to feel wanted.

Of course, there’s a way to prevent ALL that.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I don't know, how would it?
It wouldn’t. When two people fall in love and decide to spend the rest of their lives together, and want to pool all their resources in mutual protection, it doesn’t really help their efforts if they’re expected to enter into the legal contracts for these things with someone else.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What "stranger" are you talking about?
This mystery woman that you keep expecting me to find and marry, based on standards I couldn’t begin to imagine. Besides which I already have someone.

Every time you say that a gay person should “marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else in this country”, you are disregarding who they are as a person, and what their very nature is. Worse, you’re asking THEM to disregard this about themselves. You’re also neglecting the fact that many gay people CAN get married to someone of the same sex right now, in many places in this country. And some aspects of marriage are recognized federally, no matter where the couple may live.

I don’t get why you keep trying to make arguments saying same-sex marriage can’t happen or won’t work, when it IS happening and it DOES work, in places all over the world.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9556 Sep 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i am well aware that my spiritual forefathers were persecuted and slaughtered at the hands of various "Christian" denominations; probably more so than by non Christians.
however there is a spiritual heritage that is well defined in Christianity that has no history of persecuting or slaughtering anyone. we look at the life of Christ and don't see anywhere where he ever condoned that a man should persecute or slaughter anyone simply for their religious beliefs. those who think they have that right are thinking out side of what Christ taught and really can't say that what they are doing is Christian. so maybe they them selves are not Christians but some other kind of religious group,
Unfortunately, there is no universally recognized interpretation of the Christian new testament (or Hebrew scripture for that matter) or central authority governing who may call themselves "Christian". So you're more or less stuck with a situation that all Christians can be painted negatively by the acts of some or a few.
barry

Henagar, AL

#9557 Sep 7, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
More accurately, it protects individuals.
<quoted text>
This occurred in Washington State. Here, it's just called "marriage". There is no legal distinction between "same-sex" or "opposite-sex". They're all just recognized the same.
So, if she provides for SOME marriages, then she needs to provide for all of them.
Your argument could be equally applied to interracial marriages. I presume you would not defend her if she were refusing these. Correct me if I presume wrong.
<quoted text>
Pretty much, yes it does. I've never seen nor heard of such a thing.
But it wouldn't matter. These are all just "marriages". The law does not recognize them differently, so she doesn't get to either.
<quoted text>
If two straight guys want to get married, I wouldn't oppose it. It would be no different from a man and a woman who were not in love, but only interested in taking advantage of the benefits. Getting a green card, for instance, or shielding assets.
<quoted text>
No, I am not trying to limit it only to homosexuals. In my opinion, marriage should be open to any two unrelated adults. If they're doing it to “game the system” in some way, and the state doesn’t want that to happen, then it’s up to the state to patch whatever loopholes allow it.
“Gaming the system” is perfectly possible with a straight couple right now, so that’s really no different. I suspect such cases are extremely rare anyway, so it's better to allow it so the legitimate couples may marry.
<quoted text>
I hope you understand now that I'm not.
you all keep bringing up interracial marriages as if there is a comparison.
first of all the laws against interracial marriage were in and of themselves discriminatory and arbitrary. usually there was no problem say if an asian was to marry a white person.
the problem really was that a black person could look white and a white person could be perceived as black and on the basis of perception alone the law was enforced.
now apparently it is not illegal in washington for homosexuals to have a ssm. no one is stopping them. it also no longer is illegal for interracials to get married. no one is stopping them. segregation used to be the law, it is not anymore. no one is stopping anyone else from participating in or celebrating a ssm or an interracial marriage. but what has now happened is that homosexual activists are bullying people through the use of law to celebrate their lifestyle choices and actually condone what they are doing.
now to answer your question, i may or may not think that interracial marriage is a good thing but personally i can't find any moral reason to be opposed to it. that doesn't mean that i must embrace it as always being a good idea and i personally think that one should be free to abstain from any activity or even being associated with what they personally feel is morally wrong. freedom of religion has a cost. the free market will dictate who stays in business.
by insisting that everyone honor, respect and celebrate your personal diversity, you have yourself become anti-diversity.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9558 Sep 7, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You make a point by going elsewhere. Normal people wouldn't sue.
Normal people aren't bigots.
barry

Henagar, AL

#9559 Sep 7, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
She called the couple "abominations." It WAS personal. The dumb bitch should have just said, "sorry... we're booked up that day." Instead she chose to blatantly violate State law. Here in New Jersey, first offense is a $10,000 fine... and it increases with successive violations. The civil suit is a completely separate matter.
did she really? wow, how sensitive we have become. people who don't believe in abominations are offended if someone calls them an abomination.

however, i don't believe that she did any such thing. so perhaps you can post a link to verify your claim. you see i think you threw that accusation out just to try and to inflame the argument.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9560 Sep 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you all keep bringing up interracial marriages as if there is a comparison.
first of all the laws against interracial marriage were in and of themselves discriminatory and arbitrary. usually there was no problem say if an asian was to marry a white person.
the problem really was that a black person could look white and a white person could be perceived as black and on the basis of perception alone the law was enforced.
now apparently it is not illegal in washington for homosexuals to have a ssm. no one is stopping them. it also no longer is illegal for interracials to get married. no one is stopping them. segregation used to be the law, it is not anymore. no one is stopping anyone else from participating in or celebrating a ssm or an interracial marriage. but what has now happened is that homosexual activists are bullying people through the use of law to celebrate their lifestyle choices and actually condone what they are doing.
now to answer your question, i may or may not think that interracial marriage is a good thing but personally i can't find any moral reason to be opposed to it. that doesn't mean that i must embrace it as always being a good idea and i personally think that one should be free to abstain from any activity or even being associated with what they personally feel is morally wrong. freedom of religion has a cost. the free market will dictate who stays in business.
by insisting that everyone honor, respect and celebrate your personal diversity, you have yourself become anti-diversity.
in fact, there were many, many instances of racial intolerance of asian/causasian marriages.

facts are fun!

hiding your immorality and prejudice behind the veil of religious freedom just doesn't wash...

if your religious cult tells you to be a bigot you are still a bigot if you follow them.
barry

Henagar, AL

#9561 Sep 7, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't make anything up, it came from an article about the issue.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/gay-...
Or, you can visit the Washington law website, at:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx...
But the relevant part of the law is here:
Washington State Legislature
RCW 49.60.030
Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.
(1)...(f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists. Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for purposes of this section shall be defined as the formation or execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons which is not specifically authorized by the laws of the United States and which is required or imposed, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, by a foreign government or foreign person in order to restrict, condition, prohibit, or interfere with or in order to exclude any person or persons from any business relationship on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or national origin or lawful business relationship: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of boycotts as authorized by law pertaining to labor disputes and unfair labor practices;
You're right, it doesn't use the word "sell". Instead, it uses the phrase "engage in commerce". Same thing. That's just how they talk in legalese.
i am right. you are wishfully stretching and hoping that something is there that just isn't.

the commerce clause pertains only to being "free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists". it says nothing about free individual choice. she is not participating in any boycott or blacklist. that alone seems to imply that each individual on their own may be free to sell or not to sell their services to whomever they wish for whatever reason.

you see i have visited the washington law web site.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9562 Sep 7, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go clinging to blacks again. They don't like it.
Are you black, or just their self-appointed spokesperson?

Regardless, blacks are not a monolithic group that marches and acts in lock step. There are prominent black civil rights and political leaders that do support same sex marriage and ending discrimination against gays. And while many blacks may not like the comparison, it doesn't change the fact gays have suffered some of the same types of discrimination as blacks in the areas of housing, employment, public accommodations and marriage.The experiences of each group are by no means identical and in certain instances such as slavery and segregation there is no comparison. However, discrimination is discrimination and there is no minimum threshold of suffering a group must endure before they're eligible to petition government to address their grievances.
Wondering wrote:
There is/was no Jim Crow.
I never stated "Jim Crow" was a person; it references an era of segregationist laws primarily in the South.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
barry

Henagar, AL

#9563 Sep 7, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
you're wrong & you fail, repeatedly to see how you're wrong.
try your little "loop" in a state that has laws on the books similar to what we're talking about here, and you'll find yourself in court. i'd love to see you conduct such an experiment - please, prove us all wrong. make your point.
(in other words, her services were requested for an event - and it was her services she refused to offer - and it was the services that were in question and pertaining to the verbiage to the law. i'm no lazy, you're just dense.)
there you go. quote the washington law that protects services or events. you can't. in fact article one of the washinghton constitution guarantees the freedom of religion and "liberty of conscience" neither of which are to be molested.
barry

Henagar, AL

#9564 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>in fact, there were many, many instances of racial intolerance of asian/causasian marriages.
facts are fun!
hiding your immorality and prejudice behind the veil of religious freedom just doesn't wash...
if your religious cult tells you to be a bigot you are still a bigot if you follow them.
reall, i didn't think we were talking about racial intolerance but rather it was illegal or not. two different things.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9565 Sep 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>there you go. quote the washington law that protects services or events. you can't. in fact article one of the washinghton constitution guarantees the freedom of religion and "liberty of conscience" neither of which are to be molested.
yes you are free to follow a prejudicial and bigoted religious cult if you wish, you can even be that prejudicial bigot if you wish, up to the point where it abrogates another's rights.

laws don't change prejudices and bigotry, they just make it illegal to act out on them in public...as it should be. keep your prejudices and bigotry inside your tax subsidized churches where it belongs...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9566 Sep 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>reall, i didn't think we were talking about racial intolerance but rather it was illegal or not. two different things.
yes it was also illegal to marry an asian or a latino with the anti-miscegeny laws in the states that had them.
facts are fun!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#9567 Sep 7, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, the constitutional standard is all citizens are entitled to exercise their fundamental rights.
SSM is not a fundamental right. It is a perversion of male female marriage.
The state must show a compelling interest to create a restriction that infringes upon this right.
The state has no constitutional authority to create special tribes of people based on perverted sex practice much of which is disease spreading.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/06/20...
KANSAS CITY -- A Missouri man was arraigned Thursday on charges that he recklessly infected a sexual partner with the virus that causes AIDS, and a prosecutor said he potentially could have infected 300 more people in two states.

David Mangum, 37, faces a felony charge in Stoddard County Circuit Court in southeastern Missouri accusing him of exposing a 29-year-old man to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes a life-threatening failure of the immune system commonly known as AIDS, according to court documents.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/30/98...
Original post: A Michigan man has been charged with felony sex offenses after he told police he was HIV-positive and had set out to intentionally infect as many people as he could, police said. Health officials have issued an alert warning that "possibly hundreds of people have been exposed to HIV."
Advertise | AdChoices

The man, identified as David Dean Smith, 51, of Comstock Park, north of Grand Rapids, was arraigned Wednesday on a second count of "AIDS-sexual penetration with an uninformed partner" after police said they had identified a second possible victim.
As long as homosexual behavior which is enslavement to a perverted sex practice is normalized, the more people can expect reports like these as a result. Being enslaved, the homosexual/bisexual is enslaved to his sexual practices to the point that many will lie and put others in danger of HIV for the purposes of perverted sex which they crave. The state has a compelling interest to regulate such behavior as it can result in serious health consequences. Private vice when exercised on a broad scale can cause health issues for the general public akin to drug addiction.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#9568 Sep 7, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> SSM is not a fundamental right. It is a perversion of male female marriage.......
No, marriage is a basic human and civil right, and can only be denied if there is a rational societal or state interest. Of course, there is NO state interest in harming gay folks and not legally recognizing their marriages - just irrational bigotry and religious fervor.

And why in the world would it in ANY way harm, or "pervert" a single heterosexual's marriage? I don't know any straight folks who are that weak and silly.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#9569 Sep 7, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> ...
As long as homosexual behavior which is enslavement to a perverted sex practice is normalized, the more people can expect ......
You silly thing, there is NO sex practice or act that gay people can possible perform that is not also engaged in by straight folks.

But can you tell us why you are obsessed with your fantasies of gay sex, when the topic here is MARRIAGE? Do you really think that sex is the only thing any marriage is about?

Geesh. It's darn creepy.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9570 Sep 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>there you go. quote the washington law that protects services or events. you can't. in fact article one of the washinghton constitution guarantees the freedom of religion and "liberty of conscience" neither of which are to be molested.
These things have already been quoted multiple times to you, as has the explicit exception in Washington's constitution pertaining to exercise of freedom of religion. We're not responsible for the fact you either illiterate or willfully stupid.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#9571 Sep 7, 2013
Quest wrote:
No, marriage is a basic human and civil right, and can only be denied if there is a rational societal or state interest.
SSM has no legal precedent until recently and homosexual practice is far different in multiple partner sex than heterosexual. Did you read the link i posted? The man claimed to have had sex with thousands including females.
According to documents on file with Grand Rapids 61st District Court, Smith claimed to have had sex with "thousands" of partners, intending to kill them by infecting them with HIV. Some of those people are from outside the Grand Rapids area, including people Smith met over the Internet, he told police, according to documents.
The legalization of SSM means the normalization of homosexual practice which will bring nasty results like the examples posted. Pick up one end of the stick, pick up the other. There will be a backlash when thousands are infected with HIV. Count on it. Sexually active females should assume all their bisexual associates are HIV positive and sex addicts who will lie to obtain sex and will pass HIV to them. They are Typhoid Mary's. Telling the truth is not bigotry.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Microphone cut after Mormon girl reveals she's ... 4 hr Latter Day Taints 2
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 hr cpeter1313 6,807
News Microphone cut after Mormon girl reveals shea s... 4 hr Cordwainer Trout 1
News Intimidation allegations mar Ontario PC candida... 21 hr nasty bunch 1
News MIA gay marriage heroes Thu The Troll Stopper 4
News Bar patrons keep drinking during armed robbery Thu cantread 3
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) Thu Prince 31,998
More from around the web